On 17/02/2012 STEALTH wrote:>They should just bulldoze you over the lookout, and reinstate its historical>value as a jumping off point.

Sounds like someone might have developed an emotional attachment to a tasteless, crumbling piece of crap which probably never turned a profit? But hey, lets sink more public money down that pit, because STEALTH used to get a kick out of overpriced coffee and cake after a half-arsed climbing day.

Yep. Lets replace it with some tasteful stainless steel and glass monstrosity, maybe a few palm trees etc.
At least such an establishment would have some QUALITY OVERPRICED COFFEE.
maybe even served by a pretty waitress, not like one of those crusty old railway tea ladies with a fag hanging from her lips.

Speaking of, I've got a bit of an emotional attachment to the place as the venue of my first coffee many years ago (bad instant rather than quality overpriced).

Was staying there as a 7 or 8 year old with my parents, who sensibly stuck me in a room by myself (presumably so they'd be left to their own devices at night rather than out of any concern for my need for personal space). I made full use of the coffee and tea in the room and may have been wired enough not to sleep the several days we were staying there.

I'd like to see the place up and running again, but suspect it's only going to work if serious amounts of money are sunk into it. Reading the manifesto stuck up by the local community group involved I got the sense they couldn't quite agree amongst themselves whether it was best set up as an el-cheapo base for outdoorsy-types using the mountain or as a luxury weekend spa retreat for pampered Melbournians with $$$ to spend.

On 19/02/2012 Ben_E wrote:>>I'd like to see the place up and running again, but suspect it's only>going to work if serious amounts of money are sunk into it.

You're not seeming to get the problem. The thing shut down because it couldn't turn a profit. No matter what you do to it, it won't turn a profit, because its a massive piece of infrastructure which needs to be maintained and no one bloody goes up there! How many cups of overpriced coffee do you think they would have to sell to pay off the 80 million dollar refirbishment?

Either accept an endless cycle of new owners/bankruptcies/refirbs funded with public money.....or spend the cash now to bulldoze the fucher, and be done with it. Set up an icecream stand, cause that's about the scale of operation which can be supported by the volume of traffic seen at Buffalo.

I understand the problem; I heard the place turned a profit in only one year of it's existence.

Where I'm coming from is that I think to have *any* chance of turning a profit in the future, it will need a major revamp (and a relaxation of heritage stipulations; new bathrooms at least, maybe a bit of STEALTH's ever-so-tasteful stainless steel and glass - hold the palm trees ;-) ).

Even then, I'm not sure what it's odds of breaking even will be, and I agree it'll take more than overpriced cups of coffee to do it. Really overpriced c--ktails, maybe?

What I'm saying is that If that serious attempt is not made and it is just "patched up" on a smaller budget then it has no chance at all of being financially viable and we'd have to accept that it would always have to be publicly subsidized (but hey, so are things like the grand prix), or else razed as you suggest.

In short; I think we more or less agree on the problem; I'm just happier to see money thrown at it than you are, largely on the basis my taxes are currently spent on a lot worse!

>Set up an icecream stand, cause that's about the scale>of operation which can be supported by the volume of traffic seen at Buffalo.

I reckon Buffalo would have more yearly visits than the wolgan and it manages to have 5 star resort....pump enough money into it and reinvent it with some old world 5 star charm and the punters will come...but I doubt atm there is money or the desire to do it.

I'd love to see the place reopen but it's only got a chance if it's done properly, otherwise you may as well just bulldoze it.
There's no reason why it can't be made into a success but the old model was going nowhere. We stayed there for 3 or 4 nights in spring 7 or 8 years ago. It was like being in a 1960s guest-house - toilet and shower down the passage, a TV room - but at about 3 times the cost of a standard motel. The place had charm in spades but it was really inconvenient.
I suspect it might be possible to make a success out of it by redeveloping on a 2-tier system, similar to what you see in some US national parks. The original building with expensive, high-end rooms and a compact, motel-style out the back.

Climboholic hit the nail on the head:>Agreed. I think the only way it could survive is to get 5 star status and>market it at rich Melbournites (as it was originally built to be) and maybe>get it on Getaway.

People only sleep on the Buff for two weeks a year, but Ted and Betty Tourist day trip on a very consistent basis; these are the dollars to get. They have breakfast in the valley (probably at a B&B), drive up the hill and fill up the Gorge lot around 10am; out and down around 3pm for tea time - like clockwork. You'd potentially do well there using local food, wines, cheeses, and specialties. Maybe not necessarily 5 five stars but up market and with a real chef for sure.

On 20/02/2012 singersmith wrote:>People only sleep on the Buff for two weeks a year,
Is that from some of the studies or just a guess? When we stayed there (in November I think) the chalet had quite a lot of guests.

On 20/02/2012 Climboholic wrote:>Agreed. I think the only way it could survive is to get 5 star status and>market it at rich Melbournites (as it was originally built to be) and maybe>get it on Getaway.

The Chalet was never a 5 star place.
It was originally built by VicRail's ancient predecessor when choo choo's went all the way to Bright, and then horse and cart dragged touristic types up the road.
It then became a bit like the Greta Garbo home for wayward train drivers to dry out.

The place actually ran at high capacity when the Belles managed it in the mid 1990s. But that was when it snowed down that low and Cresta still existed.

Should we also get the D8s and wrecking balls going in Melbourne?
Lots of buildings down there getting close to 200 years old.
We could start with one in Spring Street.

On 20/02/2012 Climboholic wrote:>>ODH: Where did the 100 million figure come from? And why has it come down>to 80 million?

100 million was bullshit, 80 million came from M9's post;

"MBCE reckoned "Our proposal was for a $33.0 million State Government contribution to a $50 million overall project.", but Govt reckons the $30 million is more like 50 (ie total cost of project more like $80 million...)."

The bridge on the way to Booroomba recently provided an example of heritage buffs going nuts with public money. The Tharwa bridge was about 100yrs old, and apparently "one of very few wooden truss bridges of that era in south-eastern N.S.W.".......or some crap like that. Anyway, old timber truss bridge which had totally rotted out and was liable to dump a car full of climbers into the 'bidgee. ACT government approved a concrete replacement for $10 million......then the heritage folk got involved! The result is a simulated recreation of the original (all new trusses made using massive amounts of timber). It'll require lots of ongoing maintanence and cost $20 million, thereby wasting a mere $10 million of public money so as to allow a few fogies to reminisce about imaginary better times.

On 20/02/2012 One Day Hero wrote:>>The bridge on the way to Booroomba recently provided an example of heritage>buffs going nuts with public money. The Tharwa bridge was about 100yrs>old, and apparently "one of very few wooden truss bridges of that era in>south-eastern N.S.W.".......or some crap like that. Anyway, old timber>truss bridge which had totally rotted out and was liable to dump a car>full of climbers into the 'bidgee. ACT government approved a concrete replacement>for $10 million......then the heritage folk got involved! The result is>a simulated recreation of the original (all new trusses made using massive>amounts of timber). It'll require lots of ongoing maintanence and cost>$20 million, thereby wasting a mere $10 million of public money so as to>allow a few fogies to reminisce about imaginary better times.

Wow! I didn't realise that's what was going on. I haven't lived in Canberra for a few years but it used to shit me having to drive all the way around to get to Booroomba when the bridge was closed. So the Tharwa bridge is reopened now?

Your point is well made but personally I feel a bit different about The Chalet than the bridge.

On 20/02/2012 STEALTH wrote:>The Chalet was never a 5 star place.>It was originally built by VicRail's ancient predecessor when choo choo's>went all the way to Bright, and then horse and cart dragged touristic types>up the road.>existed.

You didn't get much more "5 Star" than that back in the day. You're average punter in the early 20th century couldn't afford a holiday there!

On 20/02/2012 Climboholic wrote:>>Wow! I didn't realise that's what was going on. I haven't lived in Canberra>for a few years but it used to shit me having to drive all the way around>to get to Booroomba when the bridge was closed. So the Tharwa bridge is>reopened now?>
Yep, up and running in its full (simulated) historic glory.

Incidently, another option which was quietly being discussed (I used to climb with someone in the loop), was to leave the historic bridge standing but permanently close it to vehicle traffic. The access to tharwa would then have been the "all the way around" route which used to shit you. We timed it one day, it added just over 5 minutes each way........seems much further, doesn't it?

So, $20 million was the price paid in order to save a few dozen people 10 minutes of commuting time!

>This email is our final update on the latest happenings with the MBCE proposals to the State Government to preserve and upgrade Mt Buffalo Chalet.

>As you know, our proposal to the Government for a community ownership model to take over the Chalet was rejected by Minister Ryan Smith some months ago. Our understanding is that it was knocked back on budgetary grounds. Unfortunately, this has left us with few options.

>So, at the MBCE Members meeting in Yackandandah on 27 March, a resolution was passed to commence wind-up proceedings for Mt Buffalo Community Enterprise Pty Ltd. This decision was taken after much discussion about the Government's attitude towards our proposals and amid a somewhat sombre mood. It reflects the fact that MBCE was established to pursue a specific proposal to set up a community enterprise structure to take over the Mt Buffalo Chalet lease. That proposal has now been clearly rejected.

>In terms of where to from here, there has been a view widely expressed by MBCE members and others that a different, broad-based community group is now needed to "fill the void" and to continue to lobby for the Chalet's future. Exactly what, how, when, who and to what end needs to be defined. Except to say, that such a group would need to broad-based and with a simpler community-based style/structure than MBCE.

>To that end, the Alpine Shire have agreed to organise a public meeting to bring the wider community up to speed on the Chalet. The meeting would also be to explore the potential to establish such a broad-based community organisation to advocate for the preservation of Mt Buffalo Chalet as a guest house/ accommodation based facility (ie; not just a coffee shop and parks office).

>We encourage you now to get involved in that process.

>The shareholders and Board of Mt Buffalo Community Enterprise Pty Ltd would like to say thank you to all who have supported us over the past two years. As our open letter states, we entered this process in good faith and feel we developed credible proposals, even though these were not ultimately supported. Our shareholders were able to unite behind a vision for a contemporary Chalet for the community of the 21st century. In winding down the company, it does not mean we no longer care about the Chalet. We do care as much as ever and we think there is now a need for a new advocacy -based approach. We care especially that a half-hearted redevelopment is not pursued that would see all the accommodation at the Chalet demolished and lost forever on the flawed assumption that accommodation can never again be viable. We don't and won't accept that as a starting premise.